Citation

Nichols T. Sociol. Rev. 1991; 39(1): 131-139.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1991, The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1111/j.1467-954X.1991.tb02972.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

An article appeared in The Sociological Review for May 1990 by Steve Tombs that bore the same title as an earlier one by me (‘Industrial injuries in British manufacturing industry’ May 1986) and which took as its starting point my ‘The business cycle and industrial injuries’ which appeared in August 1989. It is argued here that Tombs's analysis does not represent the step forward that might have been hoped. It is for example extremely important in the analysis of industrial injury rates to pay careful attention to what injury rates of different degrees of severity might measure. Tombs's article is shown to be technically deficient in that he makes mistakes both of fact and interpretation in his treatment of the all reported (or minor) injury rate. Moreover, Tombs advances the claim — in the context of reference to ‘a pure "business cycle" argument à la Nicholsw’ — that ‘a generalised discussion of [business] cycles obscures important aspects of the political economy within individual cycles. In particular, the strength of the labour movement is related to the incidence of accidents at work’. For the record, it is also spelt out below that this represents an unwarranted interpretation of my own position.